Favorite Schools

Favorite Teams

Michigan

Change Region

comments

Lawsuit on Grand Rapids streets tax: Kent County court hearing today

George Buth.JPG

Kent County Circuit Judge George Buth will hear arguments Tuesday, March 18, in a suit alleging Grand Rapids failed to follow state election law in putting a streets-tax proposal on the May 6 ballot.
(MLive.com File)

GRAND RAPIDS, MI – A lawsuit alleging that the city failed to follow state election law in putting a streets-tax proposal on the May 6 ballot comes up for a hearing today. Kent County Circuit Judge George S. Buth is scheduled to preside over the case at 4 p.m. Tuesday, March 18.

A group called the Grand Rapids Taxpayers Association filed suit this month to force the tax proposal off the May ballot. A response filed with the court Monday, March 17, seeks to dismiss the suit.

“How was anybody harmed (even if there was a mistake, which we don’t admit)?” said Scott Smith, an attorney for the city. “It’s difficult for me to conceive of what injury occurred here.”

Here’s the background:

• Grand Rapids City Commission in January voted to put an income-tax proposal on the ballot in May. Voters were to be asked if they want to levy the tax for 15 years to generate an estimated $10 million annually for streets. If approved, the current income tax rates – 1.5 percent for city residents and 0.75 percent for non-residents working in the city – would stay the same through 2030 instead of reverting back to 1.3 percent and 0.65 percent in July 2015, as Grand Rapids voters authorized in 2010.

The commission also agreed to propose a city charter amendment that would relieve individual property owners of the responsibility to maintain adjacent sidewalk – but only if the streets tax also passes. The city would spend up to 16 percent of the tax revenue on sidewalk construction and repair.

• As it typically does with elections, the city notified the Kent County clerk about the proposed charter amendment. But the city apparently did not inform the county of the income-tax proposal prior to a Feb. 25 deadline. The county clerk’s office earlier this month was preparing a ballot with only one of the two Grand Rapids proposals.

• After discovering the oversight, city and county officials talked with the state Bureau of Elections and determined that the city is within its rights to run the election on its own, without the typical partnership with the county – meaning the city did not need to notify the county by the Feb. 25 deadline.

• The Grand Rapids Taxpayers Association, which formed as a campaign committee so it could raise money to fight the tax proposal, filed suit. The group and one of its members, Mike Farage, claim the city failed to follow state election law by not notifying the county clerk of the tax proposal by the Feb. 25 deadline. They want the judge to cancel the election, perhaps pushing the city to put the proposal onto the ballot in August or November when voter turnout is likely to be higher.

• City Commission met in closed session last week to consider the suit and decided to fight it. In a news release from City Hall last week, Mayor George Heartwell stated “it is clear that technical issues require legal clarification” and that Tuesday’s hearing “will determine which of several conflicting Michigan Election Law provisions apply to elections where only local issues are on the ballot.”

“We are convinced, after having met with our (legal) counsel, that we have a very strong defense and that we will prevail,” Heartwell said later by phone. “We’re confident that we have complied in every aspect with state election law. We have no reason to think that we have done anything other than fully comply.”

• The city on Monday, March 17, responded to the lawsuit with a 15-page brief stating that Michigan election law is complex and that local and state elections authorities believe Grand Rapids can legally hold the May 6 vote.

“Just as offers which look too good to be true usually are, legal analysis which looks real simple seldom is. This is just such a case,” Smith and his colleague, Dennis Kolenda, write in the city’s response.